Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2
burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, a rule applied to everybody. now what the law does, what the law would do, this law that the governor is looking at, is make a couple of amendments. first of all, it would not apply just to a person but to a business as well. so a business could assert a religious freedom interest. and basically what it would do is give businesses who refuse to serve someone for religious reasons a defense if they get sued. so that's how the law would change the current religious freedom restoration act. it would apply to businesses. they could go to court if they're sued and say, you know, it was our religious -- this is our religious freedom. it would violate it to serve someone if we believe that would interfere with our practices and beliefs. >> so, pete, there are people who are making the argument against the law saying, well, listen, maybe a muslim business owner will say, i don't want to serve christians or maybe the law could be used in some other way. somebody who had an objection, let's sa
of their religion, that's already covered under current law. the only group not covered under current or federal state law in arizona for nondiscrimination is gays and lesbians. everybody else is already covered. >> that's a separate issue, of course. just to go back to what you were saying, if you actually read the language of the law, it was a terribly drawn law. it was full of language like if there's a compelling state interest, then you can compel someone to even violate what he calls his religious conscience. the point is i think reasonable people can agree and we should find the areas of agreement, not disagreement. for instance, i do think we should agree that people should not be forced by government to do something that seriously violates conscience if it is based on a legitimate religious recognized in your church. however, that doesn't give you the right to ban access to what was called public accommodations. that was the basis for the greatest legislation in this area, the civil rights act of 1964. i think we ought to go back to that and specify public accommodations. >> but again f
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2